Yes, the faster lenses also use center filters for best evenness of illumination across the frame. But, as I mentioned, Nikon never made center filters. You could go to a sharper and faster 90 by going to the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 6.8. Granted, it's only a half stop faster. But it will outperform the one that you are considering without being much, if any, larger and heavier.Originally Posted by FredrickSummers
And as I've repeatedly mentioned, the Schneider 82mm CF works absolutely perfectly on the Nikon 90/4.5, confirmed by consistent center to edge densitometer readings on 4x5 film at least, at all the mid stops.
Won't fit the 90mm f8 that he has been considering.
Nope. But even with the CF in place, the 90/4.5 would still be slightly brighter to focus. The evenness of the grad density per se seems to be consistent from f/16
down, with a minor falloff penalty somewhat wider. I'd rather just use a 120 or 125 plasmat outright, stopped down a bit of course, unless there were tall trees etc
in the foreground necessitating significant rise to correct for verticals. Some people don't care much about corrections; but the mere fact this thread involves view
camera discussion, means that some do.
Thank you both again!
@Bob. Thanks for the suggestion, I will add that to the list. What is it about the faster 90s that require center filters as I don't hear anyone talk about using CF on the f8s.
@Drew: I do want the Schnider HM, but they are hard to find and very expensive! Otherwise 120mm I'd be regulated mostly to f8. I currently use a 90-150-210 but slowly moving towed a 90/75-120-180-360 idea now that I have better figured out how I work with LF. I live on the Blue Ridge Parkway, trees (I call them tall, but that's all a matter of perspective) are part of every local photographI use quite a bit of rise often, partly because I'm on the short side.
So do either of you know how the Nikon 4.5 or any of the 5.6 perform wide open or near wide open in relation to star trails?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ira Summers
Although this sounds counterintuitive I think you may find that with star trails changing the aperture by a stop or two makes little difference, the stars are point sources and unlike an illuminated surface which has a quantifiable brightness. Before committing to a different lens it might be an idea to do some tests using the lens you have to establish how much difference there is in star trail brightness when the aperture is changed.
All wide angle designs like those from Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Fuji and others all are hot center to edge and all benefit from a center filter.Thank you both again!
@Bob. Thanks for the suggestion, I will add that to the list. What is it about the faster 90s that require center filters as I don't hear anyone talk about using CF on the f8s.
@Drew: I do want the Schnider HM, but they are hard to find and very expensive! Otherwise 120mm I'd be regulated mostly to f8. I currently use a 90-150-210 but slowly moving towed a 90/75-120-180-360 idea now that I have better figured out how I work with LF. I live on the Blue Ridge Parkway, trees (I call them tall, but that's all a matter of perspective) are part of every local photograph
So do either of you know how the Nikon 4.5 or any of the 5.6 perform wide open or near wide open in relation to star trails?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you shoot only B&W you can dodge and burn each individual print to even it out. If you shoot chromes you can not dodge and burn. If you like darker corners and edges on wide angle shots you may call this the wide angle effect and decide not to correct it. If you shoot scenes that are naturally darker at the edges and corners, maybe like forest scenes, you might feel that you don't need one. If you shoot wide open skies or beaches that go all the way across the scene you will see the fall off. If you shoot aluminum skyscrapers that fill the height or width of the film you will see the fall off. If you do displacement then you will be positioning the film into the fall off and may get results you don't like without the filter,it is what you want to do and what your sense of quality will accept.n
No large format lens will perform anywhere near optimally wide open or one stop down. They will all be good performers two stops down. So an f8 at 16 will not be as good as a 4.5 stopped down two stops.
Yes, the lenses all benefit from the center filter. That is why they were made. What you read on the internet just means that the poster either doesn't care about the fall off, is ignorant about the fall off or is too cheap to buy the filter. The fall off is there anyway and it is more evident on 45 since the 8.0 covers a small circle then the faster lenses.Thank you both again!
@Bob. Thanks for the suggestion, I will add that to the list. What is it about the faster 90s that require center filters as I don't hear anyone talk about using CF on the f8s.
@Drew: I do want the Schnider HM, but they are hard to find and very expensive! Otherwise 120mm I'd be regulated mostly to f8. I currently use a 90-150-210 but slowly moving towed a 90/75-120-180-360 idea now that I have better figured out how I work with LF. I live on the Blue Ridge Parkway, trees (I call them tall, but that's all a matter of perspective) are part of every local photograph
So do either of you know how the Nikon 4.5 or any of the 5.6 perform wide open or near wide open in relation to star trails?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For star point light the real aperture size (not the nominal one) is decisive. That is the reason that your 90/8 lens (with a real aperture 11.25mm) gives you a worse result than 210/5,6 lens (with the real aperture size 37.5mm). Star tracks are just traces of star pinpoint light rotating on your film.
2) the part that prompts this post: night photography. I have made a few attempts to shoot star trails, but I have yet to get anything with my f8 even wide open, and I got SOME but not very good (which I account largely to technique, but what I got was still very dim) with my fuji 210W 5.6. All my research, the only real difference in these is the coverage and brightness on the GG. What I cannot find though is how these faster 5.6 and 4.5 lenses perform wide open or nearly wide open. Also any real difference between the 5.6 lenses and the nikon 4.5 (one I'm leaning toward)?
Thanks everyone, and feel free to post star/night sky photos taken with any of these lenses as examples
I highly suggest to learn the basics of star photography before you venture to buying lenses for that purpose. It pays.
Here's some example images from a thread I made awhile ago and will hopefully revive soon:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ght=startrails
More light is always better. 90mm lenses are cheap these days, so get the 90mm f/4.5 if you find one - why not?
As for the post above, I would invite Pfsor to go ahead and explain further. Considering I can use a 14mm f/2.8 (physical aperture size of 5mm) just fine on 35mm film or my DSLR and capture plenty of stars, more so than any LF lens at a smaller f/# aperture but bigger physical aperture size in my experience, I would say that empirically I must disagree.
Regarding CF, I find them to be unhelpful with night photography when you need all the light you can get. My favorite lens has been a 75mm f/4.5 Biogon or 58mm f/5.6 XL.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks